Why I like Civ5

[Librarian]

What I love most about the Civ games in general is the chance to experience history by rewriting it.

I want to relive history by creating an empire. It is the illusion of going up against the great captains of history, to match wits with Alexander, Napoleon, Elizabeth and Isabella and emulate their brilliant victories. The thrill of sending out your own Columbus or Drake to explore the world and relive the age of exploration was always great fun.

You can call me a warmonger but the earliest history is but a record of wars. It was the conflict of heroes which inspired the oldest and still greatest poems. The march of civilization followed in the footsteps of war up to very recent times.

It is conquest that has always been the cornerstone of the Civ games. In the older Civ games the dilemma was to choose between “guns or butter”. Really the object was to get farther up the tech tree so you could field more advanced troops then your opponents. Civ’s greatest controversy was always spearmen vs. tank.

I like Civ5 best because it adds some strategy to combat and does this better than any Civ before it.

Yes it’s early and Civ5 has its problems, but so did Civ3 when it introduced borders and corruption. So did Civ4 in the beginning. Give it time and Civ5 will be the best Civ yet.

 

[KahunaGod]

wow Librarian, joined in 2003 but only 5th post? (as of my message) wow!

 

[Agent Cooper]

Well, I would say that CivV exchanged strategy with tactics. There's very little strategy left when speaking of the combat system.

It has benefits and drawbacks, the worst one being that the AI has no clue whatsoever how to apply clever tactics to the AI civs.

One huge mistake was also to change the victory conditions for domination/conquest. In Civ4 you had to control a certain percentage of the global population and landareas. To achieve this on the higher difficulty levels, takes effort and skill. In CivV you win by capturing the AI civ capitals and nothing else. There are many clever ways to achieve this goal and in my opinion, it's way to easy. I've won the game on emperor level with just some 12-15 military units, taking capitals and razing everything else you capture on the way. Ally with city states to make it even easier.

I actually like playing the game, but it has some serious issues that can't be fixed with a patch.

 

[Librarian]

The AI will get better. Since Civ3 all the Civ’s have improved the AI as the game was patched. As I recall in the end Civ4 AI was greatly enhanced by a Modder.

I agree with “Agent Cooper” that the % of landmass controlled was better than the straight capital conquest.

I will not go as far as to call it tactics without a battlefield but, the ability to launch campaigns with improved strategic operations for your troops. The latest patch gives the defense a real advantage I would rather see a swing through time between an offensive advantage and defensive advantage.

Diplomacy has to walk a fine line and needs tweaking, it’s easy to abuse any diplomacy system. Other then stacks of death it is something I dislike about Civ4.

 

[speegler]

I would say that I also like Civ5 and I agree that with time probably a couple of years it will be the best civ game, but that will only be partially done with patches. The thing that made Civ4 great for me were the MODs...better AI, blue marble, BUG, influence driven war (a must), ROM, total realism, and many more.

 

[ash88]

What I love most about the Civ games in general is the chance to experience history by rewriting it.

Go get "guns of the south" by Harry Turtledove. It's a book - yeah - one of those things made out of paper. Trust me, you'll love it.

I want to relive history by creating an empire. It is the illusion of going up against the great captains of history, to match wits with Alexander, Napoleon, Elizabeth and Isabella and emulate their brilliant victories. The thrill of sending out your own Columbus or Drake to explore the world and relive the age of exploration was always great fun.

Maybe I am pointing out the obvious - but the AI in CIV 5 is not in any way representative of the "great generals" of history. You will get a better representation if you just rename your AI competitors in any other game. Like Mario Kart - just rename some guy "Napoleon" and boom - better AI then Civ5. It's unfortunate that simply calling an AI player by the name doesn't impart the genius of that historical figure. Napoleon would not have been a great general if he ran his troops single file towards my entrenched army...

You can call me a warmonger but the earliest history is but a record of wars. It was the conflict of heroes which inspired the oldest and still greatest poems. The march of civilization followed in the footsteps of war up to very recent times.

Hello fellow warmonger! I suggest that if you enjoy a spirited and intelligent war game you should load up Civ4 and find some multiplayer companions. Unfortunately Civ5 doesn't yet have stable multiplier... hell, you can't even save a multiplayer game!

It is conquest that has always been the cornerstone of the Civ games. In the older Civ games the dilemma was to choose between “guns or butter”. Really the object was to get farther up the tech tree so you could field more advanced troops then your opponents. Civ’s greatest controversy was always spearmen vs. tank.

I wonder if you are missing the point... or maybe I am... but I want to conquest the hell out of a game too.... unfortunately Civ5 is a poor representation of the process of conquest. I mean, if Civ5 is a good conquest game why not just pull out Duck Hunt instead? The birds fly at you one at a time, just like the Civ 5 AI units - but you can probably get the entire Nintendo game system off of kijiji for $10.

My point is you are selling conquest games in general, but you aren't selling Civ 5 in specific.
[/QUOTE]

I like Civ5 best because it adds some strategy to combat and does this better than any Civ before it.

I dislike Civ5 most because although the 1UPT is a stunningly beautiful idea which has potential tactical awesomeness... the implementation here is poorly constructed leading me to slaughter my enemies without challenge. And I'm not that bright - it shouldn't be this easy!

Yes it’s early and Civ5 has its problems, but so did Civ3 when it introduced borders and corruption. So did Civ4 in the beginning. Give it time and Civ5 will be the best Civ yet.

How long will you wait? How many patches will appear before you decide to move on?

 

[SirWhale]

What I love most about the Civ games in general is the chance to experience history by rewriting it.

I want to relive history by creating an empire. It is the illusion of going up against the great captains of history, to match wits with Alexander, Napoleon, Elizabeth and Isabella and emulate their brilliant victories. The thrill of sending out your own Columbus or Drake to explore the world and relive the age of exploration was always great fun.

Play Victoria 2 or EU 3?

 

[ash88]

Play Victoria 2 or EU 3?

EU3 is genius, and it's buglist was much much shorter on release than Civ 5.

I will have to check out Victoria 2.

 

[Ayt]

Play Victoria 2 or EU 3?

Definitely EU3.

 

[NukeEm]

I have a love/hate relationship with Civ5. I like the 1upt. I adore it. I didn't like the design of Stacks of Doom. Not saying it was worse or better... I just find myself having more fun in war with the 1upt. I'm a little annoyed by the long build times.. but with a little creative city placement and buildings... it isn't that bad. (I play on epic game speed) I miss religion... it has had such a huge impact on history, for me, it makes no sense removing it. It should be the staple for every Civ game. I agree that the Domination victory type is too easy, I think it should be percentage of total land. I like policies... I wish there were more options and fewer restrictions (of course accounting for balancing)

 

[Horizons]

Civ5 might get better, but it won't get better for free. It will improve via installments - DLCs.

 

[aziantuntija]

Civ5 might get better, but it won't get better for free. It will improve via installments - DLCs.

I didnt know that some extra civ or some extra unit bought from DLC would be so game changing for you

 

[kivanc]

i won't pay a cent to dlc's. i am telling this since we heard the game would be released in sep 2010.
in every thread after the info, one guy came up in every thread and telling people that dlc's could come, just trying to make people used to the idea. well, we won't. i am sure, not only me but also noone in turkey will pay for the dlc's.

 

[CivFanaticMan]

I like Civ5 best because it adds some strategy to combat and does this better than any Civ before it.

I'm sorry but I have posted numerous times that combat is not the reason anyone should like a Civ game. Maybe waging war against other leaders in history is why you like Civ, and that is a perfectly valid reason to want to play. The Combat is no reason to want to play a Civ game. I'm sorry but I must disprove this.

If you like Civ5 because it offers a good tactical war system, then thats also a perfect valid reason to enjoy the game. However (and I won't go deep into this), tactical war is one thing Civ5 lacks. By tactical war I mean selecting cities to attack based its value to the AI player, and its potential value to you in the future. Problem is the happiness system, long production times, and other balance issues prevent this on a deep scale.

Deepened tactical combat is something Total War players want more of. Notice the name of the game: "Total War". Civ players want deepened Civ building, tactical diplomacy and war, and an overall immersive experience. Notice the name of the game: "Civilization".

To get to the main point: Tactical combat may add some micromanaging and added tactical gameplay, but it feels like more of an illusion. Tactical combat also adds many restrictions to gameplay, and restrictions to what you are able to do in an empire/civ building game, is not a good thing.

 

[Venereus]

Oh great, another Civ V bashing thread.

No? That's not the topic you say? The exact opposite, is it?

Just wait a few pages.

 

[Maktaka]

It already has. CivFanaticMan has already arrived to tell everyone why enjoying the tactical combat in CiV makes you a bad civ fan and how all true civ fans think interesting combat is bad.

Moderator Action: Please discuss the content of the thread, do not discuss other posters in this manner.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Venereus]

It already has. CivFanaticMan has already arrived to tell everyone why enjoying the tactical combat in CiV makes you a bad civ fan and how all true civ fans think interesting combat is bad.

Don't BaSh a BaSher (see what I did there?). I know a good Civ V bashing when I see one, and CivFanaticMan himself has done better in the past. I'll keep waiting a few pages 'till it gets good.

 

[CivFanaticMan]

Don't BaSh a BaSher (see what I did there?). I know a good Civ V bashing when I see one, and CivFanaticMan himself has done better in the past. I'll keep waiting a few pages 'till it gets good.

It seems our forums have turned into nothing but bashing... sad... But it sure is fun!

It already has. CivFanaticMan has already arrived to tell everyone why enjoying the tactical combat in CiV makes you a bad civ fan and how all true civ fans think interesting combat is bad.

You have obviously taken my approach in the wrong way. My previous post is basically fueling this argument: the developers should have taken more action in making Civ5 a better Civ building game, than created an unneeded tactical combat system. Tactical combat was at the forefront of the new 'exciting' features changed in Civ5.

I have also noticed that tactical combat is at the forefront of the reasons why Civ5 players enjoy Civ5. My argument is that Civ is a Civ building game, therefor there should have been improvements to the building aspect of the game. Not changes, but improvements. Changes to the building aspect revolves around 1UPT and tactical combat, giving me the reason to believe that that is the only thing keeping Civ5 players interested in the game.

I have nothing against you, I am just saying: There were far more things that could have been improved upon in Civ5; Diplomacy, which has always been Civ's weakest point could have used so much improvement, but instead its almost worse than previous games. To name some more things: Government (I like the idea in Civ5 but it just doesn't feel right, Civics in Civ4 were not that great either. There could have been greater improvement of this.), trade routes could have used more improvement and could have been made to work better, AI could have been improved, and even cities could have been greatly improved upon.

As you can see, my argument revolves around what Civ5 doesn't have, and why tactical combat is a poor excuse to make up for the lack of improvement of these important civ features.

 

[ThERat]

Since Civ3 all the Civ’s have improved the AI as the game was patched

That is totally not true. The AI is not an inch smarter than it was in Civ 3 and to believe it will get better is wishful thinking.
In Civ 3 and Civ 4 the AI was also braindead, but coded in such a way that it was camouflaged. Civ 4 added some sort of AI which wouldn't run mindlessly into your defenses or send trickles of units into your territory. It was not smart either though.

Better AI in Civ4 really improved its performance and mind you, it was done by a modder (Blake).

In Civ 5 the AI is back to Civ 3 days, throwing units one by one at you mindlessly. And since no stacking is allowed, the glaring dumb behavior is even more obvious. To me Civ 5's AI is the worst since Civ 2. Totally no fun and challenge to play with. Add to that the miserable diplomacy and you got a stinker of a game.

 

[tylor]

Civ4 is first and last one that was challenging for me even without bonuses.